Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Taylor on April 23, 2009 at 0:06

The planet just can't handle this many folks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on April 23, 2009 at 1:00

wow, you think you know something.... i did a cursory search and found one article disputing the theory and was prepared to call dr. gold a quack and you guys suckers for even considering it, then decided to dig a little more.

this actually has at least a veneer of credibility, i found plenty of stuff about vertical petroleum migration and reservoirs refilling. the article that really struck me referred to the eugene island field south of new orleans, and the strange non-aerobic lifeforms dredged up from areas of naturally venting hydrocarbons.

anyway, true or not, an extremely interesting theory. far more interesting in fact, than say, global warming. ;)

i do not dispute that we have made a good start of screwing up our environment. there is also no doubt that fossil? fuel emissions are dirty, but so is just about every other industrial process. i heartily agree that we can and should improve or replace such things as we are able, but not at the expense of current and future generations of american taxpayers... and certainly not just because of some at-best-unproven theory espoused by a bunch of self serving politicians and scientists.

i freely admit that i was once obsessed with the idea that we were irrevocably destroying our planet. after literally months of reading and trying to understand everything relevant that i could get my hands on, i have come to the personal conclusion that fluctuation of the sun's energy output is the main contributing factor to any changes in our climate. suffice to say it seems to me that most of the supporting material comes from organizations such as the united nations and ipcc that have a vested interest in its propagation. i do not wish to argue this point, as nobody is very likely to change their minds about it.

what i will argue is that the earth is very likely not unique. radio astronomy has proven other stars definitely have large planets, and where there is one planet there are usually more. while our technology is not up to detecting earth-sized bodies, statistically speaking the odds are very much in favor of duplicate conditions existing somewhere in the incomprehensible vastness of the universe... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ironically enough, some of the facts behind the origin of abiotically generated petroleum also supports clear indications that carbon is plentiful out among the stars.

either way, as arthur c. clarke put it, sometimes i think we're alone in the universe, sometimes i think we're not. in either case the idea is quite staggering.

• ▶ Reply